spot north 2018 results - microsoft...summary of spot n trials (2016-2018) spot site year variety n...
TRANSCRIPT
SPot North 2018 Results
Nitrogen at SPot Farms
Mark Stalham & Marc Allison
Hypothesis: does N application drive yield?
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Yiel
d (
40
-90
mm
@ 2
3.3
% D
M, t
/ha)
Nitrogen applied to crop (kg N/ha)
Data from 556 processing crops 2010-2016
Mean ware yield at 23.3 % DM = 50.0 t/ha
Mean N application rate = 201 kg N/ha
Survey data suggest otherwise
British Survey of Fertilizer Practice & AHDB
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Ave
rage
N a
pp
licat
ion
(kg
N/h
a)
Mai
ncr
op
yie
ld (
t/h
a)
Maincrop yield
Average N application
Summary of SPot N trials (2016-2018)
SPot site Year Variety N treatments
Summary of N
effects on yield
Yields >40
mm (t/ha) Tuber DM (%)
East 2016 R Burbank Split N, All N in
seedbed (both 260)
No effect 68.2, 68.3 22.0, 22.1
2017 Brooke Split N, All N in
seedbed, Placed N
(all 220), 160, 180,
220, 160+30
No effect of rate
or timing. Placed
lower
61.0, 61.1,
55.7, 61.2,
59.2, 61.0,
62.3
24.5, 24.8, 25.0,
24.3, 24.3, 24.7,
24.3
2018 Estima 180, 210, 240, 270 No effect 54.8, 56.9,
56.6, 55.1
18.9, 18.8, 18.4,
18.5
North 2018 M Piper 120, 150, 180,
150+30
No effect 49.7, 48.1,
49.3, 50.7
23.6, 23.4, 23.2,
23.4
South West 2017 Electra 90, 120, 150 No effect 58.7, 61.7,
61.3
17.1, 16.3, 16.4
2018 Electra 0, 30, 60, 90, 120 No effect 72.0, 61.2,
72.4, 73.4,
72.3
16.4, 15.7, 15.6,
15.8, 15.4
Scotland 2017 M Piper 177, 147, Liquid,
Injection
Injection lower 54.3, 51.2,
54.5, 49.8
19.2, 19.4, 18.5,
18.4
2018 M Piper 176, 147, 120,
Placed
TBA TBA TBA
Setting the N rates for SPot North 2018
Step Process Factors Outcome
1 Calculate soil nitrogen
supply (SNS)
Cereal stubble, shallow,
sandy loam soil in a low
rainfall area
SNS Index = 1
(soil will supply 60-80 kg
N/ha)
2 Identify determinacy
group
Maris Piper Variety group = 3
(indeterminate, long
haulm longevity)
3 Calculate season length 24 May (emergence) to
end August (defoliation)
Season length = 100
days
4 Calculate initial N
requirement of crop
133 kg N/ha
5 Calculate supply from
organic manures
Nothing applied to previous
crop
But soil OM is 2.7 %
6 Fertilizer required 130 kg N/ha
Spot N 2018 Hypotheses
1. The optimum N for Maris Piper on the site would be < 150 kg/ha not the
commercial rate of 180 kg/ha
2. Top-dressing does not increase yield compared with all N in seedbed
3. Reducing N increases the risk of black dot infection
4. Reducing N increases the risk of bruising
Can we use soil tests to guide N fertilizer recommendations?
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 100 200 300
Op
tim
um
N a
pp
licat
ion
rat
e (k
g N
/ha)
Soil mineral N measured in the spring (kg N/ha)
Neeteson (1990, 0-60 cm)
Johnson & Chambers (1998, 0-60 cm)
Neeteson (1984, 0-30 cm)
Allison (2003, 0-90 cm)
Relationship between tuber N uptake and tuber dry matter yield
y = 15.25 (± 0.075)xR² = 64.2P < 0.001
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 5 10 15 20 25
Tub
er N
up
take
(kg
N/h
a)
Tuber DM yield (t/ha)
Big N uptake = big yield?
y = 0.0882x + 30.208R² = 0.2628
0
20
40
60
80
0 100 200 300 400 500Maximum recorded total N uptake (kg N/ha)
Yiel
d (
40
-90
mm
@ 2
3.3
% D
M, t
/ha)
Data from 402 processing crops 2010-2016 where N uptake was measured
Mean ware yield at 23.3 % DM = 49.6 t/ha
Mean total N uptake = 220 kg N/ha
Effect of N on yield formationRusset Burbank, CUF 2008
Nitrogen
applied
(kg N/ha)
Total
N uptake
(kg N/ha)
Integrated
GC
(% days)
Radiation
absorbed
(TJ/ha)
Total
DM
(t/ha)
Harvest
index
(%)
Total FW
yield
(t/ha)
0 142 7843 12.8 14.2 93 56.7
125 197 8622 13.8 16.6 87 64.7
250 225 9071 14.2 17.5 87 69.1
375 308 10262 15.3 18.9 87 77.8
S.E. 25.1 318.2 0.38 1.28 2.5 3.78
Harvested 29 September
Relationship between N uptake by tubers and fertilizer N application
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Tub
er N
up
take
(kg
N/h
a)
Nitrogen applied (kg N/ha)
y = 108.4 (± 8.38) + 0.317 (± 0.041)xR² = 4.0P < 0.001
What factors affect the amount of N taken up by the crop?
?
N application N uptake Tuber Yield 4 %
96 %
PCN
Water
(deficient/excess)
Soil compaction
Environment
(radiation/temperature)
Pathology
?
Soil Nitrogen Supply
Effect of compaction and irrigation on nitrogen uptake. Maris Piper CUF 2006
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1-May 1-Jun 2-Jul 2-Aug 2-Sep 3-Oct
Tota
l N u
pta
ke (
kg N
/ha/
day
)
Compacted-Irrigated
Compacted-Rainfed
Uncompacted-Irrigated
Uncompacted-Rainfed
Approx. time of T.I.
What do we mean by N use efficiency?
0
80
160
240
320
0 80 160 240 320
Nit
roge
n r
emo
ved
in t
ub
ers
(kg
N/h
a)
Nitrogen applied as fertilizer (kg N/ha)
Fertilizer
N applied
(kg N/ha)
N in
tubers
(kg N/ha)
Increase
in N
uptake
(kg N/ha)
Efficiency
of N use
(%)
0 94 - -
80 164 70 88
160 212 48 60
240 239 26 33
320 243 4 5
Fertilizer N
not in
tubers
(kg N/ha)
-
10
32
54
76
Effect of irrigation, N application and variety on tuber yield. CUF Reference Crop 2006-2017
Estima Cara
Rain-fed Irrigated Rain-fed Irrigated
kg
N/hat/ha
kg
N/hat/ha
kg
N/hat/ha
kg
N/hat/ha
Mean146
± 27.6
43.6
± 4.77
193
± 19.5
65.4
± 3.42
87
± 21.8
58.0
± 3.53
87
± 22.5
70.1
± 4.74
Irrigation increased optimum N application rate by 47 kg N/ha in Estima and
0 kg N/ha in Cara
Data from Firman
SPot Farm East 2016Split N vs Seedbed N comparison
0
20
40
60
80
100
23-May13-Jun 04-Jul 25-Jul 15-Aug05-Sep
Gro
un
d c
ove
r (%
)
Split N
Seedbed N
20
25
30
35
40
24-Jun 08-Jul 22-Jul 05-Aug 19-Aug
SPA
D m
ete
r re
adin
g
160
180
220
160+Topup
SPAD Meter: measuring leaf chlorophyll content for predictions of N deficiency
20
25
30
35
40
24-Jun 08-Jul 22-Jul 05-Aug 19-Aug
SPA
D m
ete
r re
adin
g
Standard
Over-water
Are we leaching much N?Soil NO3 sensors (Tony Miller, JIC + Agrii)
SPot North N Experiment yield
N
treatment
No.
plants
(000/ha)
No.
stems
(000/ha)
Total
no.
tubers
(000/ha)
Total
yield
(t/ha)
Yield
>45 mm
(t/ha)
Tuber
DM
conc.
(%)
Tuber
DM
yield
(t/ha)
120 30.6 107 408 49.7 43.1 23.6 11.7
150 29.2 94 345 48.1 43.5 23.4 11.3
180 30.6 123 383 49.3 45.3 23.2 11.4
150+30 30.6 106 400 50.7 46.5 23.4 11.9
S.E.
(12 D.F.)
2.11 11.8 34.4 1.74 1.56 0.27 0.47
SPot North N Black Dot
N treatment
Incidence
(%)
Incidence
(angular
transformation)
Proportion
<5 % SA
(%)
Severity
(% SA)
120 53.6 47.1 92.6 2.13
150 36.6 36.9 91.6 1.32
180 51.6 46.2 87.2 2.41
150+30 53.8 47.2 79.4 3.38
S.E.
(12 D.F.)
6.99 4.16 4.90 0.954
SPot East Black dotMain effects of N
Nitrogen
Incidence
(%)
Proportion
<5 % SA
(%)
Severity
(% SA)
180 56.4 74.8 4.97
210 55.4 74.8 6.12
240 50.2 77.0 5.65
270 57.5 73.9 5.60
S.E. (30 D.F.) 3.60 2.83 0.783
No effect of N rate or timing on black dot
SPot Scotland Black dotEffects of N
Nitrogen
Incidence
(%)
Proportion
<5 % SA
(%)
Severity
(% SA)
N1 Standard 147 kg,
top-dress 32 kg
48
(±8.4)
82
(±9.1)
3.7
(±2.09)
N2 Standard 147 kg, no
top dress
52
(±18.8)
81
(±10.8)
3.4
(±2.09)
N3 Reduced 90 kg, no
top-dress
50
(±10.0)
82
(±3.2)
3.9
(±1.28)
N4 Placed 147 kg, top-
dress 32 kg
43
(±16.5)
85
(±10.4)
2.7
(±2.20)
No effect of N rate, timing or position on black dot
Increased N delays skinset?
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
120 N 150 N 180 N 150+30 N
SPot N 2018 Maris Piper
Skinning (% surface area)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
180 N 210 N 240 N 270 N
SPot E 2018 Estima
Skinning (% surface area)
No evidence that reduced N increases bruising
0
20
40
60
80
180 N 210 N 240 N 270 N
SPot E 2018 Estima
Incidence (%) Bruise depth (mm)
0
20
40
60
80
120 N 150 N 180 N 150+30 N
SPot N 2018 Maris Piper
Incidence (%) Bruise depth (mm)
Isn’t it about what is sold rather than yield digs?SPot Scotland 2017 Packout (Albert Bartlett)
Trial 1 2 3 4
Treatment Planting
Top dress
Liquid
Standard
(177 N)
Standard
Ridge
inject
(175 N)
Standard
No top
dress
(147 N)
Standard
Standard
(176 N)
Crop
harvested
No. boxes 23 24 24 22
Graded
product
Tonnes 14.24 14.70 15.88 14.12
Packout % 64.6 62.9 67.6 64.9
Yield packed t/ha 37.5 37.8 40.9 36.1
Summary of SPot N trials (2016-2018)
SPot site Year Variety N treatments
Summary of N
effects on yield
Yields >40
mm (t/ha) Tuber DM (%)
East 2016 R Burbank Split N, All N in
seedbed (both 260)
No effect 68.2, 68.3 22.0, 22.1
2017 Brooke Split N, All N in
seedbed, Placed N
(all 220), 160, 180,
220, 160+30
No effect of rate
or timing. Placed
lower
61.0, 61.1,
55.7, 61.2,
59.2, 61.0,
62.3
24.5, 24.8, 25.0,
24.3, 24.3, 24.7,
24.3
2018 Estima 180, 210, 240, 270 No effect 54.8, 56.9,
56.6, 55.1
18.9, 18.8, 18.4,
18.5
North 2018 M Piper 120, 150, 180,
150+30
No effect 49.7, 48.1,
49.3, 50.7
23.6, 23.4, 23.2,
23.4
South West 2017 Electra 90, 120, 150 No effect 58.7, 61.7,
61.3
17.1, 16.3, 16.4
2018 Electra 0, 30, 60, 90, 120 No effect 72.0, 61.2,
72.4, 73.4,
72.3
16.4, 15.7, 15.6,
15.8, 15.4
Scotland 2017 M Piper 177, 147, Liquid,
Injection
Injection lower 54.3, 51.2,
54.5, 49.8
19.2, 19.4, 18.5,
18.4
2018 M Piper 176, 147, 120,
Placed
TBA TBA TBA
Financial summary of SPot N trials to date
Commercial split N All N in seedbed Financial Placed/injected Financial
61.2 t/ha +0.1 t/ha +£20/ha -4.9 t/ha -£980/ha
Commercial rate Optimal rate N saving Financial
57.2 t/ha +0.8 t/ha -53 kg/ha +£197/ha
Summary
• Used RB209 to calculate N requirement for crop and site and mostly found
30-60 kg N/ha lower than commercial rate being used on surrounding crop
• Experiments and strip trials showed no evidence of loss of yield from these
lower rates
• Placed or injected N tended to produce lower yields than broadcast
• No evidence that much N leached out of the rooting profile during the growth
period on heavily irrigated sandy soils, but canopies were paler and shorter-
lived where over-watering took place
• Decreased N did not result in increased bruising
• Decreased N resulted in better skinset
SPot North 2018 P, K, S Results
Site background
• Barn Field, Somerby Top Farm, Lincolnshire (53.5529° N, 0.3726° W)
• Sandy loam texture (78% S, 12% Z, 10% C) with high limestone content
• No PCN found in the trial area in November 2016
• Soil OM of 3.4 % (consequence of pig slurry from the site’s pig unit?)
• pH 8.2
• P Index was 3- (30-31 mg/l)
• K Index 2+ (215-234 mg/l)
• Mg Index 2 (58-60 mg/l)
• SO4 concentration very high (19.5 mg/l)
Site background
• Ploughed, ridged, destoned early May
• Planted 5 May
• Varieties
• Maris Piper (N & S Experiments)
• Royal (P & K Experiments)
• Emergence
• Maris Piper 5 June
• Royal 2 June
• Irrigation ??? mm
Any visible treatment effects on 1 August?
K Background
1. Allison et al. (2001a) found that:
a) Generally, K Index was a poor predictor of the probability of a yield response
b) No more than 210 kg K2O/ha be applied, even on soils with Index 1 or less
c) When applied at the optimal rate for yield, the effects of K fertilizer on tuber DM
concentration were non-significant
d) Exceeding the optimal K application rate caused occasional reductions in tuber DM
concentration, particularly if potassium chloride (KCl) was used
K Hypotheses
1. AHDB RB209 recommended K rate for site was 300 kg K2O/ha to balance
offtake by 50 t/ha crop
2. Different K products have different effects on tuber dry matter
3. Increased K reduces tuber DM
K Treatments• K products:
• None
• Muriate of potash (KCl)
• Sulphate of potash (K2SO4)
• ICL PotashpluS
• K rates:
• 0 kg K2O/ha
• 100 kg K2O/ha
• 200 kg K2O/ha
• 300 kg K2O/ha
• 3 replicate blocks
Yields (main effects of K source and K rate)
K source / rate
Yield
>40 mm
(t/ha)
Total
yield
(t/ha)
Tuber
DM
(%)
DM
yield
(t/ha)
KCl 35.1 37.2 24.9 9.3
K2SO434.5 37.0 25.1 9.3
PotashpluS 35.3 38.2 25.0 9.5
S.E. (22 D.F.) 1.46 1.39 0.15 0.37
0 34.6 36.8 25.2 9.3
100 35.2 38.0 25.1 9.6
200 35.6 37.9 24.7 9.4
300 34.4 37.1 25.0 9.3
S.E. (22 D.F.) 1.69 1.60 0.17 0.43
No effect of K source or rate on yield, and no directional effect on DM%
Fry colour (main effects of K source and K rate)
K source / rate
Fry colour
(0 = USDA 0,
1= USDA 1)
KCl 0.029
K2SO40.038
PotashpluS 0.025
S.E. (22 D.F.) 0.0100
0 0.028
100 0.028
200 0.033
300 0.033
S.E. (22 D.F.) 0.0116
No effect of K source or rate on fry colour
P Background
1. Allison et al. (2001b) found that:
a) Increases in the number of tubers in response to application of P fertilizer only
occurred in soils with P Index 2 or lower and appeared to be associated with an
increase in ground cover by the time of tuber initiation
b) Applications of foliar P had no effect on number of tubers (or yield) and the authors
discouraged this practice
P Hypothesis
1. Foliar P can increase the number of tubers, even on high P Index soils
P Treatments
• No foliar P applied
• 10 l/ha MAGPHOS K applied as foliar spray in 200 l/ha 2 days prior to tuber
initiation (15 June)
• 10 l/ha MAGPHOS K applied as foliar spray in 200 l/ha 2 days prior to tuber
initiation (15 June) and second 10 l/ha 10 days after tuber initiation (27 June)
• 6 replicate blocks
Numbers of tubers
No effect of foliar P on number of tubers
0
100
200
300
400
Control TI-2 only TI-2+TI+10
No
. of
tub
ers
(0
00
/ha
)
10-20 mm 20-30 mm 30-40 mm 40-50 mm
50-60 mm 60-70 mm 70-80 mm 80-90 mm
Tuber yield
P treatment
Yield
>40 mm
(t/ha)
Total
yield
(t/ha)
Tuber
DM
(%)
DM
yield
(t/ha)
No foliar P 45.7 47.6 25.1 11.9
Foliar P at TI 45.1 46.8 24.8 11.6
Foliar P at TI and TI+10 days 44.3 46.3 25.0 11.6
S.E. (10 D.F.) 1.33 1.25 0.49 0.36
No effect of foliar P on yield
S Background
1. Previously, the supply of natural sources of S from the soil was regarded as
sufficient for the potato crop
2. Significantly reduced S deposits from the atmosphere (due to a marked decline
in industrial pollution), and continued use of fertiliser with low S content, S
deficiency has gained increasing attention in many regions causing crops to
become vulnerable to yield reductions
3. Spot North experiment is one of a series being conducted as part of a 3-year
AHDB-funded project on S undertaken by NIAB CUF
S Hypotheses
1. Potato crops are responsive to S fertilizer
2. Product type influences S delivery
3. S can help control common scab
S Treatments
• No S
• 50 kg S/ha (125 kg SO3) applied as ammonium sulphate at planting
• 50 kg S/ha applied as ICL Polysulphate at planting
• 50 kg S/ha applied as liquid sulphur at planting
• 6 replicate blocks
Petiole concentration of SO4 (mg/l)
S treatment mg/l
None 164
Ammonium sulphate† 173
ICL Polysulphate† 167
Liquid S† 177
S.E. (15 D.F.) 8.8
No effect of S application on plant uptake?
†125 kg SO3/ha)
Numbers of tubers and yields
S treatment
Total no.
tubers
(000/ha)
Total
yield
(t/ha)
Tuber
DM
(%)
None 324 44.0 24.2
Ammonium sulphate† 340 42.3 24.1
ICL Polysulphate† 296 41.8 24.0
Liquid S† 396 48.1 24.2
S.E. (14 D.F.) 40.5 3.06 0.22
No effect of S on yield
†125 kg SO3/ha)
Common scab and skin finish defects
S treatment
Common scab
(0=absent, 1=low, 2-
medium, 3=high)
Proportion of tubers
with skin finish
defect (%)
None 1.67 68
Ammonium sulphate† 1.17 75
ICL Polysulphate† 1.67 83
Liquid S† 2.00 87
S.E. (15 D.F.) 0.214 9.6
No effect of S on skin quality?
†125 kg SO3/ha)
Summary of AHDB S Project 2016-2018 (8 sites)
Petiole S04 (mg S/l) Yield (t/ha) Tuber DM %
No S 117 62.7 22.0
With S 134 63.0 22.1
S.E. 5.4 1.50 0.09
Variety Petiole S04 (mg S/l)
Innovator 123-160
VR808 68
Maris Piper 138-170
Royal 98
Russet Burbank 192
Summary
• Don’t do nutrition experiments on high Index soils!
• K Index 2+
• No effect of K source or rate on yield, DM or fry quality
• P Index 3-
• No effect of foliar P on number of tubers
• S soil concentration very high
• No effect on yield or skin quality
• Optimal fertilizer for site
• 120N, 0P, 0K, 0S
Acknowledgements
• NIAB CUF would like to thank Alex Godfrey and Will Gagg and their team at RJ
and AE Godfrey for all their help and support in conducting experiments and
trials during 2018
• AHDB staff involved in the SPot North programme including: Graham Bannister
and Amber Cottingham
• Branston staff for harvesting and assessing tuber quality, especially Oscar
Thacker and Nick Aldrich